Google is making a similar attempt with C++ called Carbon Language: https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang
C3 is more targeting C instead of C++. I'm interested to see where both C3 and Carbon will be in a few years/decades.
The C3 Programming Language
71–80 of 270 posts
Re: The C3 Programming Language
#72It seems great to have something that is C but cleaned up, although clay had all that with templates and move semantics.
I think leaving out move semantics and destructors is inexcusable at this point. It is not only fundamental, but doesn't affect things like standard libraries, runtimes, or ABIs.
Re: The C3 Programming Language
#73Dumb question about contracts: I was reading the docs ( https://c3-lang.org/language-common/contracts/ ) and this jumped out "Contracts are optional pre- and post-condition checks that the compiler may use for static analysis, runtime checks and optimization. Note that conforming C3 compilers are not obliged to use pre- and post-conditions at all. However, violating either pre- or post-conditions is unspecified behav…
The way I reason about it is that the contracts are more soft conditions that you expect to not really reach. If something always has to be true, even on not-safe mode, you use "actual" code inside the function/macro to check that condition and fail in the desired way.
“However, violating either pre- or post-conditions is unspecified behaviour, and a compiler may optimize code as if they are always true – even if a potential bug may cause them to be violated”
This implies that a compiler would be permitted to remove precisely that actual code that checks the condition in non-safe mode.
Seems like a deliberately introduced footgun.
Re: The C3 Programming Language
#74This is what a website for a programming language should look like.
I'd argue the opposite. My first thought once the page had loaded was that it looked childish and amateurish, the addition of a Discord chat link in the site navigation only reinforcing that perspective.
Nothing childish about putting the important stuff up front and a link to contact the people who made it.
Re: The C3 Programming Language
#75I see from `test/test_suite/compile_time_introspection/paramsof.c3t` that there is a way to get names & types of function parameters [1]. The language also seems to support default values { e.g. `int foo(int a, int b = 2) {...}` } and even call with keyword arguments/named parameters [2], but I couldn't find any `defaultof` or similar thing in the code. Does anyone know if this is just an oversight / temporary omissi…
I don't think it is available no, and it's the first time I heard about such an idea. Thinking on it, this would allow such cursed code (love that :D). I'll put it up for discussion in the Discord as I'm interested in hearing whether `.defaultof` is a good idea or not.
Re: The C3 Programming Language
#76I am not a C programmer but I always find these low level languages intriguing. I am wondering though: when does one pick C3 for a task/problem?
C3 is pretty much aimed at those who would use C for a task but prefer something a bit more modern. I find it more fun to program in compared to plain C, and it's definitely more simple than reaching for C++.
Re: The C3 Programming Language
#77We have solved the better C issue, but nobody seems keen on solving the better compiler issue Why do we still have to recompile the whole program everytime we make a change, the only project i am aware of who wants to tackle this is Zig with binary patching, and that's imo where we should focus our effort on.. C3 does look interesting tho, the idea of ABI compatibility with C is pretty ingenious, you get to tap into…
Separate compilation is one solution to the problem of slow compilation.
Binary patching is another one. It feels a bit messy and I am sceptical that it can be maintained assuming it works at all.
I think a much better approach would be too make the compilers faster. Why does compiling 1M LOC take more than 1s in unoptimized mode for any language? My guess is part of blame lies with bloated backends and meta programming (including compile time evaluation, templates, etc.)
Re: The C3 Programming Language
#78I think the switch statement design is a foot gun: defaults to fall-through when empty and break when there is a body. https://c3-lang.org/language-overview/examples/#enum-and-swi...
This feels very natural though, in a "principle of least surprise" kinda way. This is what you'd expect a properly designed switch statement to do.
Sadly many of us are so used to the C fall-through behavior that this would be quite a surprise.
Personally, I'd rather see a different syntax switch (perhaps something like the Java pattern switch) or no switch at all than one that looks the same as in all C-style languages but works just slightly differently.
Re: The C3 Programming Language
#79I wonder, at which point it is worth it to make a language? I personally implemented generics, slices and error propagation in C… that takes some work, but doable. Obviously, C stdlib goes to the trash bin, but there is not much value in it anyway. Not much code, and very obsolete. Meanwhile, a compiler is an enormously complicated story. I personally never ever want to write a compiler, cause I already had more fun…
> Meanwhile, a compiler is an enormously complicated story. I don't intend to downplay the effort involved in creating a large project, but it's evident to me that there's a class of "better C" languages for which LLVM is very well suited. On purely recreational grounds, one can get something small off the ground in an afternoon with LLVM. It's very enjoyable and has a low barrier to entry, really.
Yes, this is fine for basic exploration but, in the long run, I think LLVM taketh at least as much as it giveth. The proliferation of LLVM has created the perception that writing machine code is an extremely difficult endeavor that should not be pursued by mere mortals. In truth, you can get going writing x86_64 assembly in a day. With a few weeks of effort, it is possible to emit all of the basic x86_64 instructions. I have heard aarch64 is even easier but I only have experience with x86_64.
What you then realize is that it is possible to generate quality machine code much faster than LLVM and using far fewer resources. I believe both that LLVM has been holding back compiler evolution and that it is close to if not already at peak popularity. As LLMs improve, the need for tighter feedback loops will necessitate moving off the bloat of LLVM. Moreover, for all of the magic of LLVMs optimization passes, it does very little to prevent the user from writing incorrect code. I believe we will demand more from a compiler backend than LLVM can ever deliver.
The main selling point of LLVM is that you gain access to all of the targets, but this is for me a weak point in its favor. Firstly, one can write a quality self hosting compiler with O(20) instructions. Adding new backends should be trivial. Moreover, the more you are thinking about cross platform portability, the more you are worrying about hypothetical problems as well as the problems of people other than yourself. Get your compiler working well first on your machine and then worry about other machines.
Re: The C3 Programming Language
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way I reason about it is that the contracts are more soft conditions that you expect to not really reach. If something always has to be true, even on not-safe mode, you use "actual" code inside the function/macro to check that condition and fail in the desired way.
“However, violating either pre- or post-conditions is unspecified behaviour, and a compiler may optimize code as if they are always true – even if a potential bug may cause them to be violated” This implies that a compiler would be permitted to remove precisely that actual code that checks the condition in non-safe mode. Seems like a deliberately introduced footgun.
My understanding of this was that the UB starts only after the value is passed/returned. So if foo() has a contract to only return positive integers, the code within foo can check and ensure this, but if the calling code does it, the compiler might optimize it away.